Canada's MP Pension Plan: Standing Out in a Time of Austerity

Now that the Conservatives have decided to raise the age that the sweaty masses can start collecting their Old Age Security benefits to 67, I thought that it was time to do a quick posting on MP pensions.  I have sourced the data for this posting from the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation publication "The CTF Report on MP Pensions: A Taxpayers' Indictment".

Let's look at a bit of background information first.  Canada's MPs (both present and retired) can start collecting their pensions  at age 55 if they have served at least six years; twelve years younger than the proposed changes to OAS.  MP pension benefits are calculated using the average of the MPs best five years of salary multiplied by the product of the number of total years of service and 3 percent to a maximum of 75 percent of their total salary.  The Prime Minister is entitled to extra goodies; upon reaching the age of 65, former Prime Ministers receive a special allowance worth two-thirds of their extra salary (currently $157,731) which currently works out to $104,665 annually.  Please note that these pensions are fully indexed to the Consumer Price Index, something that the rest of us can only dream about.  As well, MPs that have served non-consecutive terms (i.e. Stephen Harper, Bob Rae etcetera) can buy back in by contributing for the missed years.

Here is a sampling of the pension benefits for some of Canada's highest profile and longest serving MPs of all parties keeping in mind that the median household income for Canadian families was $68,410 in 2009:

Note that the 2015 and 2019 pension benefits assume that the MP will serve until either 2015 or 2019.  The minimum of six years of service means that first term MPs like Elizabeth May will not qualify for their pension until she has put in six years of service in 2017, thus, the data field for her is blank in 2015.  I do find it rather appalling that after serving only six years, a very young backbench hair-comber like Mr. Genest-Jourdain can collect $40,033 annually for the rest of his life after he reaches age 55.

Canadian taxpayers are a generous lot when it comes to helping out those who represent them.  In 2009 - 2010, Canadian taxpayers contributed a total of $102.7 million or $248,668 toward the pensions for each of Canada's 413 MPs and Senators.  Canadian taxpayers contributed $23.30 for every dollar that MPs contributed to their pension and MPs currently receive $10.64 in pension benefits for every dollar that they contribute.  Sweet deal if you can get it!

What is interesting to note is that by law, the Canada Revenue Agency mandates that no registered pension can exceed an accrual of 2 percent of salary for each year worked.  Canada's MP pension plan exceeds this, ranging from 3 to 6 percent.  Using a legal loophole that splits the pension into two parts, the Members of Parliament Retiring Account and the Members of Parliament Retirement Compensation Arrangements Account, allows our illustrious MPs to skirt the law.  Sneaky, eh?

With the Harper government preaching austerity, it will be interesting to see if they make meaningful changes to their own pension plans to set the tone for our future prosperity.  At the very least, Mr. Flaherty and his fellow MPs should move the age at which the MP pensions kick in to 65 as a goodwill gesture to generous Canadian taxpayers.  I wouldn't count on it but it's a nice thought.


Update:


In his 2012 Budget, Mr. Flaherty made some rather vague changes to Canada's MP pension plan by pledging to raise MP's contributions to match taxpayers' contributions beginning in the next Parliament.  That rather nebulous change will still allow MPs to retire at age 55 after just six years of service; from my chart above, you can see that near-rookie MPs will still collect over $40,000 per year for the rest of their lives with minimal service at an age that is 12 years younger than when Canadians can collect OAS.

How Much Does John Baird Cost Canadian Taxpayers?

Since the Harper government appears to be all consumed with the very thought of prying into the private lives of Canadians all in the name of protecting our children, I thought that it was time to pry into the political life of "one of them".  I pick the utterly charming John Baird as my target.

I have to open with this quote from his official website:

"In August 2010, recognizing Mr. Baird's ability to reach across the aisle and work with Members of Parliament from all parties, Prime Minister Harper asked Mr. Baird to help make Parliament work by asking him to serve as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons."

This is the face of "reaching across the aisle" and "working with Members of Parliament from all parties" also known as "the face of working together for Canadians":

Let's open with a quote from Mr. Baird regarding the recent kerfuffle over the Bill C-30, the internet snooping bill, referring in particular to the Vikileaks anti-Vic Toews Twitter feed:

"Not only has it stooped to the lowest of the lows, but it has been running this nasty Internet dirty trick campaign with taxpayers’ money..."

Okay, fair is fair.  Let's see what Mr. Baird is doing with taxpayers' money.

Mr. Baird has had a rather diverse career in Ottawa with his most recent posting finding him as Minister of Foreign Affairs.  First, I'd like to take a look at how much he has spent on travel and hospitality since Mr. Harper appointed him to the job on May 18th, 2011 as disclosed here.

Mr. Baird has traveled far and wide in the first six and a half months of his tenure as Minister of Foreign Affairs as shown on this chart:

Please keep in mind that these are his expenses for slightly over a six month long period.  As well, you will note that he used government aircraft for four out of the fifteen trips he took during the six month period and availed himself of supplied accommodation five times.  If the expenses from these trips were added to the total, his total expenses would far exceed the $92,130 claimed.

What I find most interesting is his use of business class tickets.  His October 2011 airfare to Perth, Australia for the Commonwealth and Developing Small States Foreign Ministers' Meeting was a whopping $18,514.  The airfare for his July 2011 Libya Contact Group Meeting in China cost taxpayers another $10,581.  Even both of his airfares from Ottawa to Toronto and return in June 2011 cost taxpayers $753 and $715, the full Air Canada Executive Class Flexible fare.  Why anyone needs an Executive Class seat for a one hour and seven minute flight is beyond me but, when you're not paying for it, I guess it doesn't matter.  I can understand that one needs to be relatively refreshed when arriving for an overseas meeting but if the Harper government is serious about cutting expenses, perhaps this is a place to start.  After all, many publicly traded corporations have eliminated business class travel in an attempt to save money.

Now, let's look at Mr. Baird's Member's Expenditures Report for his MP office expenses for the period from April 1 2010 to March 31, 2011:

Mr. Baird's total office expenses of $324,215 are small compared to some of his counterparts in Ottawa for one reason; he lives in Ottawa so his accommodation and per diem expenses should be near zero (they are, in fact, $3138.34).  Here are the rules for claiming accommodation and per diem expenses:

Mr. Baird also spent $4896.50 on hospitality and events; for your information, here are the rules for the allowable claims:

Now, let's go back one year and see if there is anything different in his expenses from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010:

Mr. Baird spent a total of $343,383.02 in 2009 - 2010.  The standout item in this year's expenditures is his massive $68,345.33 bill for ten percenters, those little 8 1/2 by 11 inch sheets of blatantly political propaganda that the Conservatives were so fond of.  It's hard to imagine that one MP could spend more than the average income of a Canadian family on, pardon my French, merde that goes right into the recycle bin.  For completeness sake, here are the rules for ten percenters:

Now let's take a brief look at Mr. Baird's salary for the last fiscal year (and for 2009 and 2010 as well).  His base salary for each year was $157,731 and he raked in an additional $75,516 for his position as a Minister.  He also gets a car allowance of $2122.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has compiled a study of MP pensions entitled "CTF Report on MP Pensions: A Taxpayers' Indictment".  In this report, the CTF notes that parliamentary pensions are particularly lucrative because parliamentarians currently receive $10.46 for every $1.00 that they contribute and taxpayers contribute an additional $23.30 for every $1.00 that parliamentarians contribute.  Let's see how much Mr. Baird is due to receive on an annual basis and as a lifetime total:

I don't know about you, but a $96,020 pension strikes me as a pretty sweet deal, especially when it is fully linked to the Consumer Price Index and starts at age 55, 12 years younger than the proposed new pensionable age suggested by Mr. Harper for Canada’s public pension plan.

I certainly hope that you enjoyed this little window into how one of Canada's loudest MPs spends our tax dollars.  Now that the Harper government is expecting Canada's future seniors to live on less, let's hope that Mr. Harper expects the same of his own.   

Lumping Legislation

Yesterday in the Globe and Mail and in the National Post there were a couple of brief items about the passage of Bill C-9 through the Senate. It appears that this bill is coming up against some rough waters as it goes through "sober second thought" in the red chamber on the Hill.

For those of you who care, Bill C-9 is available here. It is essentially the Act that will implement the 2010 Federal Budget that was introduced on March 4th, 2010. It consists of 900 pages and 2200 sections of admittedly mind-numbingly boring legalese but buried in the Bill, are a very, very wide range of goodies for all.

I'll outline a few of the wide ranging subjects:

1.) Declaring how much additional fiscal equalization payments certain provinces can expect after April 1, 2010.

2.) Outlining the management structure for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act.

3.) Allowing that the members of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board are entitled to be paid reasonable travel and living expenses incurred in the course of their duties.

4.) Stating that the Surveyor General is the Canadian member of the International Boundary Commission Act.

5.) Also stating that each member of the Standards Council of Canada shall hold office for a term not exceeding four years.

6.) Mentioning that despite sections 41 and 42 of the Old Age Security Act, the Agreement on Social Security between Canada and the Republic of Poland, signed on April 2, 2008, is deemed to have come into force in Canada on October 1, 2009.

7.) Noting that environmental assessments are not required for some federally funded infrastructure projects.

This omnibus Bill seems to cover everything from soup to nuts. Now, after 3 full months, the Opposition is complaining publicly that the Bill covers a range of items that are so disparate as to make the Bill abusive. Apparently, because the Opposition is so ill-prepared for an impending election, they gave a pass to the Bill just to avoid making the government fall as you'll see later.

Apparently, one of the big sticking points is the section of the budget that would allow the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited without Parliamentary approval which kind of got stuck in the back pages of the document when everyone's eyes were heavy with sleep.

Here's part of the voting record on the Bill. Notice that out of 309 MPs, well less than 250 showed up for most votes:

As well, in 3 additional earlier votes, only 239, 208 and 263 MPs voted.

For the third reading of the Bill on June 8th, 2010, there were 138 yeas, 126 nays and 6 paired votes (abstentions) for a total of 270 votes out of a possible 309 MPs who should have been present in the House for this important vote. If you want to see which Liberals were there and which were not, see this page. Note that only 47 of 77 Liberals were present in the House and Canadians call that representation?

Liberal MP Bob Rae has stated that he's hoping that the Senate might be in a better position to divide Bill C-9 into smaller components so that each one can be passed on its own merit. In response, the Prime Minister's campaign chief Senator Doug Finley threatened that his Party was prepared to go to an election over the matter. He also let it be known that "the planes, buses and war rooms are ready" if the Liberal Senators do not restore the budget to the state in which it left the House. Heaven help us, we have to rely on the Senate to look after us!

There is a solution to this problem. Why don't our wise elected officials pass legislation that would prevent omnibus bills from being created in the first place. In the particular case of Bill C-9, it would prevent the passage of legislation that is completely unrelated to the 2010 Federal Budget. As it stands in the House at this point in time, the Conservatives can use a budget document to further their Party's agenda on matters that have no fiscal bearing on Canada and that just strikes me as morally questionable at best.

The root of the problem in this case is different than would normally be found in the House. Under normal circumstances, in a minority situation the Opposition, who holds the balance of power, would be only to willing to vote against the government on this Bill and force an election. Unfortunately for the Liberals, polls show that with their current leader, they cannot hope to win even a minority government and, in fact, if trends continue, they may even be relegated to a third place finish.

However, that said, it is their problem and it should not be ours. We didn't elect Liberal MPs (and for that matter, Bloc and NDP MPs as well) to sit on their behinds in Opposition and wait until their support levels reached reasonable heights before they take action against the Conservative government. They were elected to represent their constituents and provide meaningful opposition when the government's actions require it. As Canadians, we should not be forced to put up with the passage of faulty omnibus bills just because the Liberals are trying to wait for the day when public opinion swings their way. We could certainly be waiting a long time for the Liberals to act and that is definitely not what we are paying them the big bucks. It's not our fault that we have a lame duck Opposition but Canadians seem to be the ones suffering for it. And another thing, you're not getting paid $157,731 a year (at a minimum) to stay out of the House when it comes time to vote on a Bill that you don't like. That's not democracy.

It could be an interesting political summer after all. And who would have thought that any excitement would involve the Senate?

It's a win-win for Auditor-General Sheila Fraser and Canadian Taxpayers

Finally, the very secretive Board of Internal Economy relented today and agreed to allow Sheila Fraser, Canada's Auditor-General, to have a wee peak at their books. Here is the press release from the Board stating their new position on the audit. It is important to note that today's agreement does not include the Senate; Ms. Fraser will be making a formal request to examine their books soon, let's hope they do the right thing without having to be pushed.

For those of you that aren't aware, the Board is "...the governing body of the House of Commons...." which has the legal authority to administer the House, its budget and expenditures and salary scales for non-unionized employees of the House. Basically, in a nutshell, they control the books of the House of Commons.

Back in May, the Board basically told Ms. Fraser to "go fly a kite" when she suggested that she'd like to audit Parliamentary expenditures. Here's what the Board said back on May 13th, 2010:

"Following careful consideration, the Auditor General will not be invited to conduct a performance audit of the House of Commons. According to the Auditor General’s Act, the proposed audit would go beyond the scope of the Auditor General’s mandate, which allows her to audit government departments and various Crown agencies as identified in the Act, but does not include the legislative branch, which includes the House of Commons and its Administration."

That sounded like a firm no to me. Unfortunately, Canadian taxpayers felt otherwise; fully 85% of Canadians polled stated that they were concerned about their MPs' refusal to let Ms. Fraser audit their books despite the Board's reassurances that their books were audited.

Today's (June 15th, 2010) press release took a different tone, likely reflecting (for a change) what Canadians want from those they elect:

"Having considered the key points raised in that meeting, as well as the assurances provided by the Auditor General as to the process her Office would follow in doing the audit, the Board has decided to invite the Auditor General to undertake an audit of the House Administration and to grant her access to the House of Commons and its records."

Now that's more like it.

In looking through the Board's website, I found this interesting line:

"The Board of Internal Economy is committed to being transparent about the financial and operating matters of the House of Commons."

They should have added "...only when forced by public opinion".

Unfortunately, Ms. Fraser will only be spot-checking certain expenditures made by MPs and will only expand her audit to include all MPs if significant wrongdoing is found. As the rules stand now, any MP that is found in breach of the expenditure rules are forced to pay back the House, unfortunately, because the Board of Internal Economy meets in camera (in private), the identity of the offending MP is kept secret. Canadians had hoped that secrecy would not be an issue if Ms. Fraser had found irregularities, however, she has already stated that her report will not name names. That approach leaves MPs with little to fret over during their three month summer break. I would also rather that she was doing a full audit rather than a performance audit but at least this exercise will accomplish something.

For your information, here is the pdf file containing all of the major details about Members expenses for the fiscal year 2008 - 2009 from the Board of Internal Economy website which have, according to the Board, been audited by an independent accounting firm. At least with this document, we get a look at where some of the $583 million Parliamentary budget is spent. As well, the audit of the Financial Statements for the House of Commons for 2009 - 2010 is underway and will be posted to the Board's website when it is completed. It will be worth a look once it is released.

I think the whole exercise could have been avoided had legislation been in place that would require MPs to post their audited expenses on their government websites on an annual basis. Right now, three Liberal MPs are posting their expenses on their websites against the orders of Mr. Ignatieff; they are Michelle Simson, Rob Oliphant and Marlene Jennings. As a taxpayer, I for one would like to see legislation passed after the next general election that forces MPs to divulge how they are spending our money on a regular and readily available basis.

After the recent expense scandals in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, it is the least that our MPs could and should do for those of us who faithfully send our tax dollars to Ottawa. Despite their protestations that spending controls are in place, Canadians still deserve proof that there is no wrong-doing from a neutral third party like Ms. Fraser.

Our trust in our politicians is blind but it shouldn't be stupid too.

What's Under All the Rest of the "Rocks"?

It has certainly been an interesting week for Helena Guergis and those of us that have been watching from the sidelines as her political career seemed to implode. Canadian newspaper, magazine, radio and television media have been enthralled with the story and have done a great deal of investigation, discovering intimate details about her activities during her tenure as Minister for the Status of Women and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The media has scrutinized her every move for the past couple of years and every day this week, Canadians have learned something new (and, it would appear, increasingly sordid) about her private and public life. Every time a new rock is overturned, something slimy seems to crawl out into the light of day.

It would be interesting to see what would come to light if the media scrutinized all of our elected officials to the same degree that the political and private lives of Helena Guergis have been examined over the past few days. Thursday it was revealed that Rahim Jaffer travelled with her to Belize and Guatemala in 2008 and appears in photos taken on that trip. If he were not such a recognizable spouse, would we even be aware that he had accompanied his wife on the trip? In this case, a Foreign Affairs spokesperson stated that her Department did not disburse any funds for Mr. Jaffer, however, Canadians are so mistrustful of their politicians that they may find this difficult to believe. At the very least, the optics of the situation are not particularly good.

If a backbencher of any Party took the same trip with their spouse, it is highly unlikely that any Canadian would recognize their spouse in any publicity photo. If, as alleged, Rahim Jaffer used his wife's taxpayer-sponsored limousine privileges, it would more readily come to light, again, because he is a recognizable spouse. In the same vein, if a backbencher's spouse used the same limousine privileges, it would likely pass unnoticed.

If all the rest of the "rocks" in Ottawa were overturned, it may turn out that the actions of Ms. Guergis are not that unique among our politicians. It is most unlikely that Canadian taxpayers will ever know the extent to which privileges of office are misused by those we elect. Books such as "On the Take", a 1995 expose written by Stevie Cameron about the greed and corruption in Ottawa during the Mulroney era, show the Canadian electorate how corruption can be epidemic in the halls of the House. We can only hope that we are not seeing a repeat of history, however, we will never know for certainty.

On the upside of this whole affair, it seems to have completely re-energized Wayne Easter (Liberal - Malpeque, PEI). Apparently, Ms. Guergis should have never insulted his home province! Please note that this video was from Question Period prior to Ms. Guergis "resignation".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gQw8Hq5U6A

Is Canada Over-governed? Part 2

In an earlier posting, I discussed the Harper government’s recent plan to increase the number of MPs by 30. This would be implemented to supposedly better balance representation among the provinces (Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario) with growing populations compared to those with stagnant or shrinking populations. I agree that these three provinces need more representation, however, I do not agree that Canada needs more MPs.

In my posting of April 9th, 2010, I argued against this proposal on the grounds that Canada’s MPs (and Senators for that matter) represent a tiny fraction of the number of electors that both Members of the House of Representatives and Senators in the United States represent.

I also noted that, with a base salary of $157,731, the additional 30 MPs would cost Canadian taxpayers $4.7 million annually. In addition to their base salary, each of the 30 new MPs could expense up to $25,468 annually for rent, meals and utilities while they are living in Ottawa. This would total up to $764,040 annually. On top of their base salary, MPs receive additional salary for Chairing and Vice-Chairing committees, acting as Party Whip, Parliamentary Secretaries, Caucus Chair etcetera ad nauseum. Each MP is also entitled to free travel by train and 64 return plane tickets each year. Each of these items would add to the overall expense to Canadian taxpayers.

The biggest budget item for MPs are the claims for personal and office expenses. In 2008, the 308 MPs in Ottawa claimed nearly $128 million for these expenses. In Canada, taxpayers have the right to know how much their individual MP spent in total, but not specific itemized list of expensed items. This is not the case in either Great Britain, where a huge expense claim scandal is rocking Gordon Brown’s government, or the United States where Representatives expense claims are in the public domain.

In Canada, MP expense claims are examined by the Board of Internal Economy. The Board is comprised of 8 MPs, 3 from the Conservative Party, 3 from the Liberal Party, 1 from the NDP and 1 from the Bloc. They meet behind closed doors and their deliberations are never made public. It is this Board that decides how taxpayers money is spent to run the House of Commons.

For the fiscal year 2008, Canada’s 308 MPs spent $127,850,218 on office and personal expenses. That’s an average of $415,100 for each MP. If Canada adds an additional 30 MPs, their personal and office expenses will cost Canadians at least $12,453,000. MP expense claims grew nearly 42% between 2000 and 2008 so it is likely that the total cost for the additional MPs will be well in excess of $13 million in the first year.

From my rough calculations, an additional 30 MPs will cost Canadian taxpayers at least $18 million in the first year alone. While this does not seem like much to our politicians who are used to dealing with multi-billion dollar deficits, it is a lot to ordinary Canadians who earn these tax dollars one at a time. We must also remember that this additional cost goes on forever and will only increase over time.

Rather than increasing the number of MPs, I would suggest that riding boundaries be changed to better reflect the Canada’s changing population distribution and that our current crop of MPs learn how to work more effectively. Redrawing riding boundaries is a one time expense that will cost the taxpayer very little and that's the way it should be.

References:

Member of Parliament Office Expenditures

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/654005

Members of the Board of Internal Economy

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/InternalEconomyBoard.aspx

Rahim's Compensation Package

Rahim Jaffer was first elected to the House of Commons in 1997 at the age of 25 serving as Reform/Canadian Alliance/Conservative MP for the Edmonton-Strathcona riding in Alberta. He served Canada for 11 years and 4 months until his defeat by the NDP in the election of 2008, a contest he lost by 400 votes.

Mr. Jaffer attended the University of Ottawa where he received a Bachelor of Social Studies degree in 1993. He worked as a legislative assistant in Parliament and was co-owner of a Timothy's coffee shop franchise in Edmonton. He reached the zenith of his political career in February 2006 when he was appointed Conservative Party Caucus Chair by Stephen Harper. Politically, he was best known for allowing one of his aides to impersonate him on a national radio live call-in broadcast for which he was demoted to the back benches.

When Mr. Jaffer was elected as a Member of Parliament at the age of 25, his Member of Parliament annual base salary was $64,400 with non-taxable expense allowance of $21,300. In the same year, Canadian 2 parent/2 earner families with 2 children had average family income of $66,299. On what planet was it fair that Canadian taxpayers paid a newly graduated university student with minimal life experience more than an average 2 earner Canadian family?

What is even more disturbing about this situation is that because Mr. Jaffer served for more than 6 years, Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for his MP's pension which he can start collecting when he turns 55 in December 2026 and which he will collect for the remainder of his life. How many Canadians can say that? Unfortunately, the exact size of individual MP pensions is not readily available to the public so Canadian taxpayers don't know how much they will ultimately be expected to pay.

This system has to change.

p.s. Fortunately, despite Mr. Jaffer's request, the Edmonton-Strathcona riding went ahead with their nomination meeting in May 2009 without him and nominated Ryan Hastman. I would suggest that his recent activities will likely preclude any future return to the hallowed halls of Parliament. That is Canada's good fortune.

References:

Parliamentary Indemnities, Salaries and Allowances

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Lists/Salaries.aspx?Menu=HOC-Politic&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb

Family Income 1997 (sourced from Statistics Canada)

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/lib-bib/rep-rap/2000/stat2000/p1.html

Kicking Helena to the curb....almost

It's amazing how quickly Parliament and the Conservative Party have kicked Helena Guergis to the curb. Her page on the Parliamentary website has already been changed to reflect the fact that she now sits as an Independent which is noted in black so taxpayers don't get confused about who she doesn't belong to. It is also interesting to note that her personal website is down (as of 10:00 AST Sunday) but her Conservative Party sponsored website is still active.

Before I drop the matter of Helena until the next exciting revelation, I wanted to do a posting on just how much she's earned from the taxpayers of Canada. She was first elected on June 28th, 2004. She was first appointed as a Minister (of State for the Status of Women) on October 30, 2008 until her removal from Cabinet on April 8th, 2010. Prior to her appointment as Minister, she was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Sport from January 1, 2007 and was Parliamentary Secretary for International Trade from February 7, 2006. She also sat on 7 Committees during her tenure.

Let's take a look at her salary during that time frame. Salary years run from April 1 of the first year to March 31 of the following year. I have prorated the Ministerial salary for 2008 to 5 months and the 2004 salary to 9 months.

MP Base Salary Minister Total Salary

2009 - $157,731 $56,637 $214,368

2008 - $155, 400 $56,637 $178,999

2007 - $150,800 $150,800

2006 - $147,700 $147,700

2005 - $144,300 $144,300

2004 - $141,200 $105,900

Her total base salary take as either an MP or as a Minister for the 6 years was a cool $942,067. Not a bad haul for someone who just received her Executive MBA (not the most highly regarded MBA) from the University of Alberta in August 2009 without, it would appear, an undergrad degree. But she did get training as a realtor!

Ask yourself, did you, any family member or your entire family earn that much during that time period? The worst thing for Canadian taxpayers is that she will soon be eligible for the very generous MP pension. She has served 5 years, 9 months and 16 days on the Hill. In less than 3 months, she'll be eligible for a pension once she turns 55 and the Canadian taxpayer will be on the hook, paying her for the balance of her life.

Life is not always fair.

Helena Guergis' Page on the Parliamentary Website

http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/ProfileMP.aspx?Key=128818&Language=E

Helena Guergis' Conservative Party Website

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4568/65157

Members of the House of Commons - Indemnities, Salaries and Allowances

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Lists/Salaries.aspx?Menu=HOC-Politic&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb

Great Excitement!

Today was a big day in my household. I got another "10 percenter"! It doesn't get any better than getting new reading material for the bathroom. This time it was generously sent to my humble abode all the way from the riding of Regina - Lumsden Lake in Saskatchewan where Tom Lukiwski, Conservative MP lives. Here I thought they had forgotten all about me!

This "10 percenter" focussed on how unpatriotic Michael Ignatieff is and how "he's just in it (politics) for himself", not for all Canadians. Not only was it most informative, it was pure partisan politics at its very best.

We all know that every altruistic Conservative MP on Parliament Hill only has the best interests of Canada at heart. Their 2009 base pay of $157,738, annual expense allowance of $25,500 and annual allocation of 64 free return airline tickets would have absolutely nothing with their desire to serve Canadians!

I've sent Mr. Lukiwski my standard email questioning the use of millions of taxpayers dollars to fund the "10 percenter" Conservative election campaign. Let's just say I'm not holding my breath waiting for a response.